Council Minutes

Minutes/Committee of the Whole
Monday, March 8, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.

The city council met as the Committee of the Whole on Monday, March 8, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers in City Hall with Mayor Brown presiding. Present at roll call were: Council Members Brooks, Hamerlik, Glassheim, Gershman, Christensen, Kerian, Kreun - 7; absent: none.

Mayor Brown announced that when addressing the committee to please come forward to use the microphone for the record, and advised that the meeting is being televised live and taped for later broadcast.

Mayor Brown commented on various events held during the past week and upcoming events:
1) He welcomed back the 142nd and thanked them for their tour of duty and for their service.
2) Congratulations to the organizers of the U.S.National Men's & Women's Championship for Curling and thanks to everyone who attended and helped make it a success, remember to watch NBC for a special this Saturday at 1:00 p.m. and it will include the championship highlights as well as highlight on our community and will be looking forward to the World's Championships.
3) He reported he had the opportunity to meet Friday evening with Lt. General Welser III at the hockey game and presented him with a key to the City, that it is crucial that we keep doing every-thing possible to make sure our connections with our Base are solid and as strong as possible.
4) Congratulations to all of area sports teams and good luck to the athletes for moving forward in their competitions and includes all our Class B Regional basketball teams and girls and boys basketball teams from Red River and Central; UND Women's basketball team and McNoughton Cup winning UND hockey team. He stated good luck to all the athletes and coaches.

He introduced Chris Langei from the 5 + 5 Coalition who stated she had presented a challenge to Mayor Brown to take the 5+5 Challenge and now presented the challenge to the city council members - the 5 + 5 Coalition was formed to help make Grand Forks a healthier community and also challenged all members of the community to take the challenge which means eating 5 to 9 fruits and vegetables a day and doing 5 days of physical activity. Start-up packets were distributed to members of the council along with description of the program.

2.1 Public hearing re. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans for the city of Grand Forks, the University of North Dakota and Grand Forks County.________________
Mayor Brown opened the public hearing and stated the purpose of the public meeting is
to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the stormwater pollution prevention
plans for the city of Grand Forks, Grand Forks County and the University of North Dakota; that
this is the first annual meeting to be held soliciting the public comment on these plans, the permit
and pollution prevention plans are on the back table, the city's permit plan and contacts will be
posted on the city's website in two weeks, and that anyone wishing to comment to please come
forward. There were no comments and he closed the public hearing.

2.2 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to residential buildings at:
1. 1220 6th Avenue North 4. 907 Cherry Street
2. 1120 1st Avenue North 5, 523 Schroeder Drive
3. 9 Vail Circle 6. 804 South 19th Street________________
Mel Carsen, city assessor, reported this is a program for properties that are 25 years old
or older, commercial and residential, and improvements to that property by renovation, alteration or remodeling to the extent of a 10% increase in building valuation, then could make application to his office to exempt the added value of those improvements for a three-year period; and stated that these exemptions meet that criteria and have to make application within a 12-month period.

He noted that the property at 523 Schroeder Drive is a single-family home that meets the criteria of the 10% increase in valuation, that there are two additions to that building adding about 544 sq.ft., that State Law does provide for exemption of the added value as well as remodeling, the city council has most recently been granting 100% of the added value and his recommendation is to grant exemption on the additions. He stated the state law does allow us to write guidelines, that the council wrote guidelines and amended them about a year ago and those guidelines give authority to the city council to grant or not grant on an individual basis.

Mr. Carsen stated the exemption on commercial property is 10% of the improvement value and $5,000, and criteria on both have to be met; that on residential property it is 10% or $5,000, whichever is least. He noted in case the building is sold or to a non-profit that the exemption automatically transfers for the entire period of the exemption.

2.3 Applications for exemption of remodeling improvements to commercial buildings at:
1. 2015 Library Circle
2. 500 Gateway Drive____________________________________
Council Member Christensen questioned ownership of the 500 Gateway Drive property; Mr. Carsen stated that is former Eddy's Bakery building, now Gateway Storage.

2.4 Consideration of bids for construction of Project No. 5575, 2004 ADA Curb Ramps__________________________________________________________
Council Member Brooks questioned the bond and license on abstract of bids. Cindy
Voigt, asst. city engineer, stated that x's on license and bonds were left out by mistake but are
checked on the website, they post that on the website for contractors information.

2.5 Consideration of bids for construction of Project No. 5573, 2004 Concrete Street Repairs._______________________________________________________________
Council Member Gershman stated about year and half ago he recommended that the City
think about repairs to the major streets around dike construction that are getting beat up by heavy trucks (Belmont, Lincoln Drive, and Sunbeam area) and have plan for repair of those streets without special assessing property owners or formula because it is not normal wear and tear and encouraged staff to look at that.

2.6 Consideration of bids for construction of Project No. 5572, 2004 Sidewalk Repairs.________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.7 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5479, District No. 184, Street Lighting - Cornerstone Estates.__________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.8 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5511, District No. 140 - Street lighting in Columbia Park 29th Addn. (Pembrooke Drive, Haleigh Drive and Mulberry Drive).______________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.9 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5618, District No. 141 - Street lighting on Cherry Street (Southend Drainway to 55th Ave.S.)_______ __________________
There were no comments.

2.10 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5619, District No. 142 - Street lighting on 36th Ave.S. (Columbia Rd. to S. 20th St.) and S. 20th St. (32nd Ave.S. to 36th Ave.S.)_______________________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.11 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5620, District No. 143 - Street lighting for Southbrook 1st and 2nd Addns. (Curran Court and 48th Ave.S.)______________
There were no comments.

2.12 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5621, District No. 144 - Street lighting on Reummele Road._______________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.13 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5622, District No. 145 - Street lighting on S. 34th Street (36th Ave.S. to Reummele Rd.)___________________________________
There were no comments.

2.14 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5623, District No.1 46 - Street lighting - North Pines Addn.____________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.15 Plans and specifications for Project No. 5624, District No.1 47 - Street lighting for Deacon's Gardens Addn.________________________________________________
There were no comments.

2.16 Softening basin repairs.
There were no comments.

2.17 Request from McCombs, Frank, Roos Associates, Inc. on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for final approval (fast track) of replat of Lots A, B, C, F and H, Block 1, Columbia Park 21st Addn. (loc. east of S. Columbia Road between 32nd Ave.S. and 36th Ave.S., including variance to the Land Development Code, Article 9, Subdivision Regulations, Section 18-0907, subsection (2) Right of Way, paragraph (L), as it relates to access to arterials streets.________________________________
Council Member Christensen reported in the Planning and Zoning minutes some com-
missioners were thinking about some type of interior drive on this plat, and asked what resolution was, and if we are ahead of ourselves on this until we know what the DOT is going to do re. the change of the intersection and stoplight. Dennis Potter, city planner, stated there was discussion about doing a north/south interior drive. Kreun stated that when the traffic is heavy and the entrance to Wal-Mart facility off Columbia Road directs traffic in front of their business and a lot of pedestrian traffic, slows traffic down to the effect that it almost backs it up at the intersection of Columbia and 32nd, that he had asked if they were going to widen their ring road which is behind Red Lobster and Taco Bell and his suggestion was that they make an access to that road from the western entrance through their parking lot to alleviate that traffic, similar to SuperTarget area, and would take in the platting process and that design would be in that process when they replat it.

Council Member Christensen stated when we approved the rebuilding of South Columbia Road from 32nd south, we were presented with having right turn lanes that we took out of the plan and with this increase we may be back to where we need those right turn lanes because bottlenecks we have coming in and out of the Wal-Mart area and in and out of the SuperOne area, and is concerned about people going in and out of these facilities without any controls; can't have this type of expansion without addressing traffic going in and out on those two areas. Mr. Potter stated the current plans for the widening of Columbia Road include coming down south from the intersection of 36th Avenue South and Columbia Road and as they come down from the 6-lane will be narrowing it down at the intersection they are talking about, the west exit, and there will be a three-quarter intersection installed and that will provide for those exiting the Wal-Mart complex. Al Grasser, city engineer, stated the intersection project, that there is going to be an improvement to the Wal-Mart entrance which will be widened so that there is a lane to turn right to go north, a lane to go across to the SuperOne area and also a dedicated left turn lane for those people who want to go south; that the original concept plan for that area was to put in the three-quarter intersection but through the project development and with input from the business owners, the council agreed to leave that intersection open at this point and look to putting in the three-quarter intersection concurrently with the traffic signal that would end up anticipating going in on 36th and Columbia. Christensen stated that was before this proposed development was presented and didn't anticipate the increased traffic with this development and would seem prudent that engineering and planning and zoning give us a proposed traffic flow so we have a better feel for what we are approving before we do that, because once we do this and don't have a plan in and have even more people trying to get on South Columbia Road from Wal-Mart and from SuperOne and not going to have any traffic control, and that is hazardous intersection right now, and is concerned about the traffic that is going to be generated by this.

Maps were put on the screen showing the Wal-Mart area, current access on 32nd Avenue South which will be closed and new intersection will be on the east side of the property going out and entering onto 32nd Avenue South, proposal is to put stop light and median cut and have traffic moving into and out of the Wal-Mart /Sam's Club complex via that stoplight and that is next to Grease Monkey. Gershman stated he thinks that access will alleviate much of the problem but if people know they don't have to go down Columbia, will head east on 32nd to the stoplight. He stated there has to be a certain amount of distance between access points (600+ ft.) but if keep going east you have 23rd Street which is J.D.Byrider and what happens to that intersection - Mr. Potter said that will stay the way it is.

Gershman stated that when buildings are going to be constructed adjacent to their properties, they receive a footprint of the building but don't receive elevation of the building, that what happened to his business on 20th is that they did not honor his setback and that he saw the footprint of the building and assuming it was a normal building but that they put a building that is 20 ft. high, his architecture would have been preserved instead it is gone coming from the west side and is encouraging property owners who receive a notice to get the elevation of those buildings, and noted to Council Members Kreun and Kerian who are on Planning and Zoning that would be a good service to the public, elevations are important. He stated he hopes the State comes through and approves the stoplight there as that is a true safety issue and that area is getting extremely congested now.

Council Member Kerian asked if the developers have the height of buildings, and how would they accomplish what Mr. Gershman is asking in the process; Mr. Potter stated they only have the footprint of the buildings, and they can require through the Planning Department the submission of the building elevations as part of the actual application process, and would check to see if they would need to change the ordinance.
Kerian stated it appears that the stoplight would be crucial to this plan and that without that may have to go back to the drawing board and that the City needs to allow the change in the distance between lights or access and then it goes to State. Mr. Potter stated that is the process they are working on now and that the State is looking for us to send them a recommendation and that will come back to the council once they at staff level have completed their reviews. He stated that the council is giving a variance to allow for the access point on the assumption that ultimately the light is going to be approved and if the light isn't approved, then this plat goes away. He stated his understanding of the process is that they will receive the traffic study, will do the analysis on it and if staff believes it meets all of their issues related to traffic flow, they will come to the council with recommendation that they concur in putting a light at this location and then go on to the State for their recommendation. Mr. Grasser stated that the State controls access and also the approval and State has asked a series of questions to the developer on their traffic analysis so they can do their analysis of the signal warrants and need, we believe that before the State would sanction a traffic signal there, they are going to want the City to give input on the signal and his assumption is that if the City said yes, they would still hold a veto over it, and if City said no, doubts very much that the State would force a signal onto the City, they will review and we will get some indications from State as to where it is and they will want to have City input, but not to that point yet.

Mr. Grasser stated when they have had discussions with Wal-Mart traffic people and managers that part of the traffic coming in from Columbia Road will tend to shift if actually have a full blown signalized intersection and that may pull some of the traffic off, and the widening and improving access will help. He noted a bigger problem is that for 3 months they put in a garden center and that is probably when seeing operational problems because there gets to be a lot of congestion, and other important item they see is to get connections to 36th Ave.S.; want to avoid routing everyone around 32nd or up and down Columbia Road and if can bring the growth that is occurring here to the south through 36th so have backdoor entrance and reason Columbia Mall functions as well as it does because have multiple entrances there - this site is small and try to optimize things as best we can.

Kreun stated they did have a complete study and that is why the entrance on Columbia Road was changed after that, and stoplight was to go on 25th and that is not acceptable because that hinders traffic on 32nd and that was part of the traffic study and this becomes more palatable if we give this access farther down, and question was raised that traffic through the parking lot to 36th, and why not put street in there, but property owner to the east wasn't interested in giving up any easement or right of way and lot of underground utilities and would be very costly to put street in there so doing best we can in working with the developer on getting an access to 36th, and the analysis that will take place for traffic will give us some of those answers that had questions to along with analysis that we did about a year ago, are studying this and do know what the bottlenecks are and that this is a much better plan than prior one.

Hamerlik asked that location of the various businesses shown on the map be pointed out for people watching on t.v. and also where new businesses would be (Taco Bell's, gas pumps, and where new traffic light would be if approved).

Glassheim asked if we are being asked to approve this without knowing whether that light goes in; and by approving the plat we approve the construction without knowing what the traffic is going to be. Mr. Potter stated the council is being asked to approve the plat without knowing if the stoplight will go in, and are approving the plat so the developer can bring in the detailed plan that they would propose to do, staff would not approve that until we know if the stoplight goes in and the council has agreed to it, but trying to move this part of the process through so that if the council and if the State says to put the light in, have this part of the process out of the way. Glassheim stated that if we approve what is before us at the council meeting that does not approve the whole project to go forward and they will have time to submit the request to the State for the traffic light and before we come back with a detailed plan we will have a decision by the State. Mr. Potter stated that was correct. He also noted that the developer is not going to spend much more time and expense into getting into detailed layouts because that is money out of their pocket until they know if this is going to go. He stated that staff people will not clear it until the council and State says that light will be installed.

Mr. Grasser stated the original concept report - that Wal-Mart had made a request to signalize their existing entrance and DOT against that and didn't even allow that for a decision point for council to even consider, as they control that corridor and concept report showed best solution for traffic flow in this area and accident reduction was to put the three-quarter intersection in and the concept report recommended that; however, Columbia Road is a local jurisdiction road and they deferred decision to implement that to the city council, the council decision was to defer the three-quarter intersection until such time as the signal goes in at 36th, that we changed our concepts instead of half-mile spacing down to quarter mile and the idea is when this happens, three quarter will go in concurrently with that , the timing was left unknown with an anticipation of 5-6-8 years and City can reconsider things and there will be an issue of funding because the project does not go through and install a signal nor does it put in the three-quarter intersection here, that the project stops before it gets to the new entrance here so a whole series of mechanical follow-ups as to how it gets implemented, paid for but will answer those questions as the preliminary steps are done, the State is in total control of this intersection and the question is even before will the State allow a signal, the State won't even allow a curb cut in here without permission, and plat means nothing until you go through and follow up to make these things happen, and the State will be part of that and the City will be part of that.

Kerian stated re. garden center and traffic congestion and if we have any ability to say anything about that or influence the location of that. Mr. Potter stated maybe - doesn't know answer to that, but that under the detailed development plan process , we can start to answer those questions, and Kerian stated she would recommend that.

Christensen stated he agreed with suggestion of Kerian, can have that as part of the PUD detailed development plan as to where you allow permitted uses as part of the plat. He asked Mr. Grasser whether we should revisit the right turn lanes and before had considered not doing that until got light, and if prudent to think about controlling right turns now so we finish that out as part of this project this summer or next year rather than wait and have more disruption, that maybe good idea to think about that and perhaps add it to the project now when we have funding or ability to get increase in funding. Mr. Grasser stated that one of the issues may be funding and one of the restrictions or limits on this project was that we maxed out all of our funding available at the regional and urban levels, and thinks we will have the opportunity to talk about that when we bring back more detailed information on anticipated traffic flows, etc.

Kreun stated that he brought up if we can widen approach and direct traffic to ring road where they should be going, rather than driving up to their front door and waiting for pedestrians to cross, which backs up traffic and that is why asking those questions at P & Z as well and thinks we have some concern to maybe try to ask them to put that extra road in there in place of snow storage area and/or garden center, that was their comment and coming through tonight.

2.18 Request from CPS, Ltd on behalf of Jim Price representing Rydell Chevrolet for final approval (fast track) of plat of Rydell First Resubdivision, being a replat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 2, including vacated alley adjacent to said lots and the north 30 ft. of vacated 26th Ave.S. adjacent to Lots 11 through 16, L.N.B. Court (loc. at 2605 S. Washington Street).____
There were no comments.

2.19 Request for proposals for redevelopment of former Almonte Nursing Home site._____________________________________________________________
Hamerlik asked that after receiving RFP's if they will be reviewed by committee and if
so, will there be a statement relative to open bidding orally afterwards for those who meet the min. qualifications. Keith Lund, Urban Dev., stated it was not their intent to have oral bidding for this proposal because the primary focus is to find homes that are architecturally compatible with the neighborhood, and have a minimum bid price based on 90% of the assessor's determination of fair market value and the proposals ranked on those meeting min. qualifications and then best home design for the neighborhood. Hamerlik stated he believes there should be oral bidding on everything afterwards, and that there are acceptable plans and unacceptable plans. Mr. Lund stated that they are going to set the minimum bid for the lot and best is subjective but the best house for that lot and that is focus, this is recently designated historical district and the homes have true architectural flavor and want to preserve that. Hamerlik stated he indicated they must meet the specs. for the historical site and if have two or more the second criteria would prevail and that is to bid on them; bidding only if suitable bids to meet the best qualifications.

Gershman stated he thought there would be tremendous interest in these lots and that the committee should discuss what Hamerlik is saying, rather than decide now that won't do that.

Hamerlik stated that should be in the specs if oral bidding afterwards, that if more than one meets the min. qualifications, then oral bidding. Glassheim stated that the key element is protecting the neighborhood and likes the way they are proposing to set it up and workable.

Christensen stated if have design review committee and RFP and have 5 lots that would like to have somebody develop and have criteria, developers submit proposals which will be ranked and if meet the min. criteria, then they would be eligible to bid, and if go to the bidding process, may get more than one bidder and go with Mr. Hamerlik's recommendation; or if going to the best ranking and establish a min. price, it should be 100% of market value rather than 90%, put bid in at min. bid and then bid as Hamerlik stated, but if ranked one and pay the assessed value as determined by Mr. Carsen; seems process could be thought out a little more.

Kreun stated that the City used a similar process for affordable in-fill housing program and if two people chosen then go with Hamerlik's option, and if put that into place and fine tune it and give review committee opportunity to look at the bidders, but thinks have quite a decision-making process because people will have to come in with conceptual plans for that home and not just bid on a piece of property but time invested and plans in place.

Mr. Lund reported that timeframe is a consideration, that committee will consider timeframe that the developer has proposed, that once we transfer title we lose a little bit of control, and that is where experience and completion of previous projects comes into play.

2.20 Surplus real property.
Keith Lund, Urban Development, stated there would be oral bidding once bids
were opened, but didn't think it would come into play.

2.21 Request from Easter Seals/Goodwill for transfer of houses at 1604 and 1610 Lewis Blvd. to their organization._______________________________________________
Council Member Kreun asked if houses could be sold directly without advertising. John
Warcup, Asst. City Attorney, read from the Code Section 2-0402 does allow sale to an entity such as Easter Seals without the necessity of bidding, public bidding can be waived by the city council by the adoption of a resolution agreed upon by 5 members of the council. Council Member Christensen asked Mr. Lund if he could have a proposed resolution for next Monday's meeting.

INFORMATION ITEMS

3.1 Information concerning 2004 assessments.
Council Member Hamerlik reported receiving calls today relative to article in the
newspaper and asked Mr. Carsen to review the information.

Mel Carsen, city assessor, stated they are in the process of finalizing the 2004 assess-
ments, do have many complete and hope to send notices of increase to those people the end of this week, and wanted to alert council and the public. He stated there are many reasons for increasing or changing property values and identified those in his report: new construction, whether new or addition to a building, remodeling to a building or tearing a building down; buildings that go from exempt to taxable; portions of buildings that were exempt and now taxable; reappraise a group of properties each year, mainly in Boyd and University Heights areas and scattered areas around town and reappraised most of the apartment properties. He stated one catching most flack is where have to adjust their market value to coincide with what real market is, and this is something they do every year, when there is a rise in market values have to follow that rise and if a fall in market values, have to follow that also. He stated they study sales of homes that took place during the year 2003 and compared them against the 2003 assessor's market values and on 634 residential properties sold last year, about 5% of total properties, and on overall basis about 8% below where we should be - the market has risen 8% in the last 12 months, and then study by neighborhood (city divided into 36 neighborhoods) and 30 have homes in them - and neighborhoods have similar age, similar price range and look at sales of homes that took place last year and based on those have come up with varying factors and increases in all of those 30 neighborhoods and those increases vary from no increase in one or two neighborhoods, some fall between 3 to 8% range, few at 9%, one or two at 10% and one at 12%, and neighborhood increasing 12%, sales actually indicate should increase by 22% and kind hearted and backed off a bit and wants to talk to the council person that lives in that neighborhood in the next day or two.

He stated that on commercial properties when you extract or take out the apartment sales, the apartment sales showed increase 10-12% but are reappraising all of those, so excluding the apartments, the commercial property sales indicated should increase by 2%. He stated that if they didn't do that, the State Board of Equalization which are the top 5 elected State officials sit in August and equalize properties state-wide, they have the same sales information that he does; that when they process the sales information , they send that information to the State, and will do that in the next few weeks. He stated that if the State Board would see that we were 8% low, they would increase our residential properties by 6%, they would equalize where there is evidence sufficient to at least 95% of the market and in Grand Forks that would take a 6% increase across the board; that his office has chosen to do that internally as they have done it for 20+ years and thinks they can do better job than their taking a broad stroke. He stated that we are required by State law to send notice of increase whenever the property value increases by 15% or more over the last year's assessment, and expects about 600 or 700 properties that would increase by 15% or more, most would be new homes, vacant lots that used to be agriculturally assessed and additions that were added to houses, reappraisals, and could be as high as 900, and then about 5200 properties that fall between the 7% and the 15% and do not have to send notices by law to those people, but do that out of courtesy; get new value to them and whom they should call if they disagree with that value.

Hamerlik asked if there could be another friendly letter between sent to those between the 3% and the 6%, and if would advise that as that becomes impact for people in lower income homes and if dike or other assessments. Mr. Carsen stated he though 7% was reasonable number and anything under that wouldn't be a big burden, and maybe threshold should be 6% and would add more notices and at 3% probably 14,000 notices total because almost all property.

Mr. Carsen noted that the valuation for 2003 is set between February and April of 2003, and anything they do in the summer will be set for next year.

Glassheim stated that what Mr. Carsen is doing is based upon actual sales and actual values in the city of Grand Forks, and basing on the actual increases in value, but as we start looking at creating our budget for next year, knowing that the valuations will be going up significantly hope start thinking about holding the mill rates or even going down which will still bring increased revenue to the city but will not impact the homeowners final taxes as badly as it sounds like the valuations would mean - hope will start thinking about adjusting the mill rates and taking into account this good increase in value for those who own homes but don't want to pay 8 or 10% more in taxes because of value increase.

Christensen stated this is a matter for the interim ad hoc finance committee and he would be interested to get a summary and an estimate from assessing as to the proposed increase in revenue that tax increases could generate across the board - and would like this information sometime in March or early April so that we can start thinking about the mill in reduction as Glassheim suggesting, and believes the council has the ability to have a budget resolution as to what they feel would be an appropriate level of spending for the administration to work towards as far as tax increase or mill reduction; may have increased source of revenue by sales tax collections which will defer our property taxes; the administration will be aware of the fact that they have the wage study as to what potential increases giving our employees. He looks forward to proposed information as to increase in revenue that could be made available to the various governmental authorities in light of their current mills and do as Glassheim is suggesting and begin thinking about some type of budget resolution.

Brooks asked if the summary of revenue increases can include a breakout where it comes from - some increases from tax abatements coming off, increased value, etc. Mr. Carsen stated they normally put together a detailed report for the City Board of Equalization which is scheduled to meet April 13 and might have it before then, that he did a preliminary projection in December and his numbers now seem to be lining up with that, and will have a detailed report showing how much is new construction, for re-evaluation, and from various sources.

Gershman stated Mr. Glassheim's comments are excellent, followed by Mr. Christensen's to see what we can do to hold the mills or get the mill levy down, but would also like the number of employees who will be retiring this year and what that means in dollars and how you can bring that forward as far as an additional savings for us.

3.2 2005 Transportation Enhancement Project request to ND Dept. of Transportation.___________________________________________
There were no comments.
3.3 Financial report - Portfolio Management/Summary for February, 2004.
There were no comments.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS

1) Council Member Brooks stated he had the opportunity to go with the Air Force tour Thursday and Friday led by John Marshall and Mayor Stauss from East Grand Forks, it was very beneficial and very impressive to see their cost figures, what they do in terms of maintenance on planes, and would encourage council members if there was an opportunity to take tour, and very impressive.

2) Council Member Gershman stated that Leon Russell concert is on Thursday night at the Empire Arts Center.

ADJOURN

It was moved by Council Member Gershman and seconded by Council Member Glassheim that we adjourn. Carried 7 votes affirmative.

Respectfully submitted,



Candi Stjern
Acting City Auditor